Bonus Complaint Lucky Nugget Denying £14k Win Due to Hidden Term

wishfulsuited

Dormant account
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Location
Basildon
hi people, I've never had the need to sign up here before, but now I think someone might be able to help me.
I play MG slots quite a lot a couple of casinos, I normally take a bonus when it's offered and never had any problems before with cashing out.
Anyway, I've been waiting a couple of years to take up the big sign-up offer at Lucky Nugget of £1,000 and I finally had a win where I had the cash available, so off I went.

I read and re-read all the terms and knew not to go and bet big or anything.
I decided to stick to slots - my favourite game - Break Da Bank Again, hoping for a big win. That is exactly what I got. I got 4 rubys in free spins with bdb symbol and won £19k!
The buzz of winning that was amazing so I carried on playing the same size spins hoping to get it again.. The slot seemed to go cold so I started playing Thunderstruck, at the same size spin. I nearly had a heart attack when it went down a couple of £k.. Then I hit 5 poles in a row with a wild for a £7750 win!, putting me on £26k! I stupidly carried on with the same size spins, finishing the wagering associated with the bonus with no more wins. I think I was on about £23k then. Then I played some more and lost about £2,000 when I thought to myself I have to stop before I lost it all.

So I withdrew £3,000 so I'd still have loads in my balance to play with. This was paid to me. I then played some more with my balance and was on about £17k and withdrew another £3,000 which was paid. Then I won a little bit back and rang them about withdrawing some more when they hit me with a bombshell - In their general terms here
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
- (NOT IN THE BONUS TERMS ON THE FRONT PAGE) term 5.7.4, there is a very important term;
5.7.4 Where a Sign-Up Bonus has been granted to you, subject to you being required to have met all wagering requirements, you will be limited to a maximum withdrawal value of 6 times your first deposit amount and any remaining balance will be forfeited. This clause will only be applied at the discretion of casino management. All progressive wins are exempt from this clause.

So they are saying I've already been paid the maximum amount for the bonus.
Now I am sure this term wasn't there before.. I read the main bonus terms a couple of times, and the (really long) general terms through once. I am sure I would have noticed this important term. Can anyone tell me if this term was here when I signed up on the 4th of February? Lucky Nugget won't reply to me telling me when the term was put on their site. My ID took so long to get approved and my payouts sent to me that 'Google Cache' site history doesn't go back that far.
 

maphesto

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 5, 2009
Location
Sweden
I would contact their rep Cobus here immediately.

My own guess is that the stupid rule was in their last update (april 3) and not in feb when you signed up.
 

chuchu59

gambling addict
PABnonaccred
CAG
PABinit
Joined
Sep 26, 2004
Location
SOMEWHERE IN ASIA
Bellerock is a solid group and is likely to treat you fairly. However, I do not like the use of the word 'discretion' which is part of a seemingly rip-off clause and they might only use it when you win big. Try sending a private message to Cobus the Senior Account Manager. Meanwhile, if you commenced play before the new terms were inserted so much the better. Meanwhile, if the rule was in the General Terms its not a hidden term as your thread title seems to indicate. Its just that you did not exert the effort to go through it.
 

Slotster!

I predict a riot.
Joined
Oct 17, 2004
Location
Location, Location!
Very disappointed to see the Belle Rock group going down this route. The Gaming Club was the first casino I signed up at, and they were always excellent. My guess is they were hit way more than most by the USA withdrawal and have been slowly sliding since...

To pay the first couple of amounts then just stop thanks to a dubious term is, well, wrong.
 

wishfulsuited

Dormant account
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Location
Basildon
Meanwhile, if the rule was in the General Terms its not a hidden term as your thread title seems to indicate. Its just that you did not exert the effort to go through it.

I would say it is an important term related to the welcome bonus, so should be in the bonus terms, not in the general terms which are 10 times as long. Maybe 'secluded' would be a little more accurate.
 

dunover

Unofficial T&C's Editor
Staff member
webmeister
PABnonaccred
PABnononaccred
CAG
mm3
Joined
May 22, 2012
Location
the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
Bellerock is a solid group and is likely to treat you fairly. However, I do not like the use of the word 'discretion' which is part of a seemingly rip-off clause and they might only use it when you win big. Try sending a private message to Cobus the Senior Account Manager. Meanwhile, if you commenced play before the new terms were inserted so much the better. Meanwhile, if the rule was in the General Terms its not a hidden term as your thread title seems to indicate. Its just that you did not exert the effort to go through it.

Aren't LN and RB etc. Digimedia now? Anyway, extrapolating from your figures in the OP, these wins you mention would suggest a stake in excess of 6.25 units per spin, so it may be you were lucky anyway to be paid. Although reading between the lines you made these high stakes after the bonus WR was met? The word I detest in these matters is 'discretion'. Discretion=discrimination. Basically I see it like this; you open an account and exceed the 6x deposit and the deposit is low, they will see it as a higher risk than a player who deposits big, who may be paid in full as they are likely to gamble large amounts in future. It could be the other way around, whereby they won't mind paying 1000 on a 100 deposit, but will shrink at paying 10k on a 1000 deposit. I think the term therefore is enforced in pure cash terms; winnings are paid if they aren't too high.
I hate vagueness, the rule should be we will NOT pay more than 6x deposit if bonus added, or there should be no limits at all.
 

wishfulsuited

Dormant account
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Location
Basildon
They have a 30% of bonus max bet rule which I was well under.. I didn't deviate from my £40 bets for my whole time playing there. Before and after the wagering.
 

SlotsLover

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Location
California
predatory rule

In my opinion, all max cashout rules on slots bonuses are predatory in nature because the entire fun of slots is hitting a big one, which can be giant for any stake (just look at the winner screenshots).

The effect of max cashouts on RTP is gross, I'd rather play slots with an 85% RTP than with a max cashout any day. It's true that one does not need to play with a bonus, but given the way the bonuses are marketed and how they have become an integral part of casino play, I feel this rule is predatory and grounds for a casino to become unaccredited.
 

Mouche12

Kitty Lover
PABnonaccred
PABnoaccred
PABnononaccred
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Location
Amsterdam
I concur: this rule is predatory and sucks big time! I hope you get lucky when PMen the rep since the clause (which should be in the bonus terms, not the T&Cs) includes the word "discretion".
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
If this is a max cashout on a DEPOSIT bonus, then no way is this remotely acceptable, certainly not for an accredited casino.

PAB right now, don't delay, this needs exposing at the highest level, and a PAB is the best way forward. Hidden or not, this term does not belong in a casino that has signed up to the standards of accreditation.

Also, if this term ONLY applies to the SUB, it belongs in the SUB specific terms, not the general ones.

If the rest of the money is still in your account, send me a PM.
 

MisterBJ

Account suspended until further notice - please co
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Location
Atlanta
It seem this rule has been there for a while (4 December 2012),
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
here is the site cached from 10th March 2013.

IF this term: 5.7.4 Where a Sign-Up Bonus has been granted to you, subject to you being required to have met all wagering requirements, you will be limited to a maximum withdrawal value of 6 times your first deposit amount and any remaining balance will be forfeited. This clause will only be applied at the discretion of casino management. All progressive wins are exempt from this clause. was already in place when the OP made his first deposit. Then the casino paid according to the terms and agreements. If this term effects the standard of accreditations. Then this casino should be brought up on those merits. I suggest the OP to PAB and see how this will plays out. Either the casino is right within its terms. Or the casino is right within its terms (As the casino can make changes to its term as it chooses). But violated the terms of accreditations with this forum.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
IF this term: 5.7.4 Where a Sign-Up Bonus has been granted to you, subject to you being required to have met all wagering requirements, you will be limited to a maximum withdrawal value of 6 times your first deposit amount and any remaining balance will be forfeited. This clause will only be applied at the discretion of casino management. All progressive wins are exempt from this clause. was already in place when the OP made his first deposit. Then the casino paid according to the terms and agreements. If this term effects the standard of accreditations. Then this casino should be brought up on those merits. I suggest the OP to PAB and see how this will play out. Either the casino is right within its terms. Or the casino is right within its terms. But violated the terms of accreditations with the forums.

I think they are going rogue. There is also the matter of the clandestine 10 day pending period. This 10 day pending first appeared two years ago, and now we have this new dodgy term, one applying specifically to the SUB, yet NOT in the specific SUB terms page, almost as though they are embarrassed to have this term shown TOO clearly.

Before this, the worst term was a delayed payment schedule for withdrawals that were greater than so many times the total lifetime deposit. Although a possibly lengthy delay, players at least still got paid under this old term. Now we have an absolute confiscation of winnings not on a free chip, but on a deposit. Other than those in the rogue pit, this is the first time an accredited casino has used such a term, and even more shockingly, a MICROGAMING casino:eek:

10 day pending + max withdrawal limit on deposits = cashflow issues as far as I am concerned. It's likely to get worse as more and more players become aware of such practices and steer clear. It may only apply to the SUB now, but this is a creeping trend of the terms getting steadily more and more predatory. The next step might be having this term apply to ALL bonuses.

Worst of all, they are currently operating this term on a "choose who to pay" basis, not because players have violated any specific bonus or gameplay term. With the criteria for it's application being confidential, they can apply it when they like, even if a player has done nothing more than have a lucky hit.

Had this term applied when I hit that 66K at Lucky Nugget, and had gone beyond just applying to the SUB, the vast majority would have ended up being voided. As it was, I just had 10 day pending applied to almost every withdrawal I had made over the last year, but I still got paid. I hit it on a deposit bonus.

If anybody is going to play there, a thorough scrutiny of the terms is in order, even if you have read them before.
 

Nifty29

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 20, 2001
Location
Turn right, then right. then right again
There is no such thing as a "hidden term".

If it's in the terms, then it's no less visible than any other, unless it's in .0007 font and in Arabic.

I don't know why every time someone gets caught by a term they didn't read its suddenly "hidden".....it should be called "unread" or "couldn't be bothered to read" term.

ALL terms are important. ALL terms should be read. If they weren't important, they wouldn't be listed.

It would have been more convenient to list it in the specific bonus terms, but not obligatory and it doesn't make them rogue. The part I don't like is the "discretion" section.....its either a term or its not, and it should be applied equally to everyone....THAT is an unfair term and imo is unbecoming of an accredited casino.

I don't see how a max cashout on a deposit bonus breaches accreditation standards in itself. It might be awful, hut its not mandatory to accept it, and the restriction is listed in the terms.

If one doesn't like the terms one shouldn't take the bonus. Its no good crying about it afterwards. The time to find out about ALL the terms is BEFORE you play.

$40 spins on BDBA etc is craaaazy BTW. Jaw dropping in fact.

VWM....you had a 10 day delay at this group? You won $66k there?? When did this happen? Its the first I've heard of it....
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
There is no such thing as a "hidden term".

If it's in the terms, then it's no less visible than any other, unless it's in .0007 font and in Arabic.

I don't know why every time someone gets caught by a term they didn't read its suddenly "hidden".....it should be called "unread" or "couldn't be bothered to read" term.

ALL terms are important. ALL terms should be read. If they weren't important, they wouldn't be listed.

It would have been more convenient to list it in the specific bonus terms, but not obligatory and it doesn't make them rogue. The part I don't like is the "discretion" section.....its either a term or its not, and it should be applied equally to everyone....THAT is an unfair term and imo is unbecoming of an accredited casino.

I don't see how a max cashout on a deposit bonus breaches accreditation standards in itself. It might be awful, hut its not mandatory to accept it, and the restriction is listed in the terms.

If one doesn't like the terms one shouldn't take the bonus. Its no good crying about it afterwards. The time to find out about ALL the terms is BEFORE you play.

$40 spins on BDBA etc is craaaazy BTW. Jaw dropping in fact.

VWM....you had a 10 day delay at this group? You won $66k there?? When did this happen? Its the first I've heard of it....


I have posted about it on numerous threads. 10 days is the norm. In fact the 66K was a notable exception, paid after 3/5 working days in two chunks. All other withdrawals, from £700 to several K, were all set to 10 day pending, easily tracked via cashcheck, my notes, and my Neteller account.

This additional predatory term seems to have appeared at the end of last year, so is an escalation of a predatory direction in their business practices. There is another case where this group are confiscating a win for vague reasons, but with no obvious breaches of the terms.

Since this one was a SUB term, why go to the extra trouble of splitting it off and shoving it in the general terms. They know damn well that players are far more likely to read the brief summary of the bonus terms than plough through the general terms. This is a knowingly predatory act, and they also know they can justify it by saying it was still there, and thus still a valid term.

This is a trick many businesses use to bury a term they don't want to make too obvious, such as before the potential customer has handed over any money. The simple fact is that a nasty term that is TOO clear tends to put people off, even if it is a term that does not apply to them. This is bad for business. The insurance industry are experts at burying critical terms among vast jungles of legalese, knowing that many customers will only spot it when they claim, yet would never sign up if they noticed the term before doing so. This is why I NEVER take out medical insurance. Theoretically, I have to declare EVERY visit ever made to a GP in my life just in case something on my medical records, in the opinion of the insurance company, is something that should have been declared. It is impossible for anyone to comply strictly with such a term without full access to their medical records, something that is not generally permitted. Unless we have a degree in medicine, the only sure way to comply with this term is to declare EVERY visit, and for this one would need a perfect memory of their entire life.
 

Nifty29

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 20, 2001
Location
Turn right, then right. then right again
I have posted about it on numerous threads. 10 days is the norm. In fact the 66K was a notable exception, paid after 3/5 working days in two chunks. All other withdrawals, from £700 to several K, were all set to 10 day pending, easily tracked via cashcheck, my notes, and my Neteller account.

This additional predatory term seems to have appeared at the end of last year, so is an escalation of a predatory direction in their business practices. There is another case where this group are confiscating a win for vague reasons, but with no obvious breaches of the terms.

Since this one was a SUB term, why go to the extra trouble of splitting it off and shoving it in the general terms. They know damn well that players are far more likely to read the brief summary of the bonus terms than plough through the general terms. This is a knowingly predatory act, and they also know they can justify it by saying it was still there, and thus still a valid term.

This is a trick many businesses use to bury a term they don't want to make too obvious, such as before the potential customer has handed over any money. The simple fact is that a nasty term that is TOO clear tends to put people off, even if it is a term that does not apply to them. This is bad for business. The insurance industry are experts at burying critical terms among vast jungles of legalese, knowing that many customers will only spot it when they claim, yet would never sign up if they noticed the term before doing so. This is why I NEVER take out medical insurance. Theoretically, I have to declare EVERY visit ever made to a GP in my life just in case something on my medical records, in the opinion of the insurance company, is something that should have been declared. It is impossible for anyone to comply strictly with such a term without full access to their medical records, something that is not generally permitted. Unless we have a degree in medicine, the only sure way to comply with this term is to declare EVERY visit, and for this one would need a perfect memory of their entire life.

Oh....I didn't realize you'd posted about it before....
 

BBKPoker

Dormant Account
PABrogue3
Joined
Dec 5, 2005
Location
Edinburgh, Seattle, Vancouver BC, Auckland
Since this one was a SUB term, why go to the extra trouble of splitting it off and shoving it in the general terms. They know damn well that players are far more likely to read the brief summary of the bonus terms than plough through the general terms. This is a knowingly predatory act, and they also know they can justify it by saying it was still there, and thus still a valid term.


Further, it's NOT a general term, it applies only specifically to the first deposit bonus. So why isn't it mentioned prominently on the page that discusses the first deposit offer. The term says it is for first deposit bonuses only which means it does not apply to other bonuses, reload offers, vip bonuses, etc, and therefore it's not a general term, it's a special one that applies to first deposit offers only.

I'm not really a fan of the term, but there's plenty of sites that have a max withdrawal restriction because they offer huge bonuses and some people find it entertaining to be able to play for forever even if it means that their chances of getting a huge win are almost zero. I think it's reasonable for a site to have and impose this term from time to time, assuming the bonus isn't special, but you need to make max cashout limitations obvious and apparent, especially when the rule only applies to some of your bonuses and not others (and in this site's case it applies to one only).

And yeah, it's annoying it's Bellerock, they've been far more reliable than the average bear over the years, shame to see them go this route.
 

Playforfun

Full Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Location
Statistics land
There is no such thing as a "hidden term".


Yes there is.

The bonus terms must specify such a central clause.

It has been discussed before. technically, general terms are valid. but it is not very fair to the average gambler. as not everybody digs on the long multi page general terms.

Besides, a casino got to make its rules clear. and not posting such a rule in the bonus terms is very misleading
 

Balthazar

The Governor
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Location
Woodbury
The part I don't like is the "discretion" section.....its either a term or its not, and it should be applied equally to everyone....THAT is an unfair term and imo is unbecoming of an accredited casino.

It's a "risk management" term. If they feel like they'll get their money back (and more) they'll pay, if not they won't.
 

zebedy

No!!!! Im Spartacus
Joined
Jun 1, 2007
Location
Up a Tree


Yes there is.

The bonus terms must specify such a central clause.

It has been discussed before. technically, general terms are valid. but it is not very fair to the average gambler. as not everybody digs on the long multi page general terms.

Besides, a casino got to make its rules clear. and not posting such a rule in the bonus terms is very misleading



It might be worth the player complaining to ecogra if everything else has failed and if the terms were hidden and not on the same page as the bonus

Kahnawake ruled about a similar problem and Casino Rewards had to pay 50% of the winnings

xxxhttp://www.gpwa.org/forum/uk-casino-club-casino-rewards-denies-10k-payout-resolved-186950.html


P.O. Box 1799

Mohawk Territory of Kahnawake
Quebec, Canada J0L1B0
Telephone +1 450 635 1076
Facsimile +1 450 635 1139
Direct email: [email protected]
TO: Hans Niemz
UK Casino Club
FROM: Micki Oster, Dispute Resolution Officer



DATE: Wednesday, February 17, 2010
RE: Hans Niemz complaint against UK Casino Club

As the Commission’s Dispute Resolution Officer, I have had numerous communications
with the complainant, Hans Niemz, and with UKCasinoClub (the “Casino”) concerning a
complaint lodged by Mr. Niemz against the Casino.

We have now finally completed our investigation into this complaint and are prepared to
direct Mr. Niemz’ complaint be resolved as follows.

We have taken several factors into consideration in reaching our decision in this matter.

Clause 13 of the Casino’s Terms & Conditions (the “T&C”) states as follows:

“The Casino reserves the right to withhold any withdrawals and/or confiscate all
winnings for irregular play. 'Irregular play' includes but is not limited to any one or
more of the following types of play:

i. Placing single bets equal to or in excess of 25% or more of the value of the
bonus credited to the account prior to the play - through requirement for that
bonus having been met;
ii. Using the double-up feature to increase bet values;
iii. Even money bets on Sic Bo, Craps and Roulette”

Mr. Niemz specifically accepted the Casino’s T&C, including Clause 13, at the time he
registered his account.

After registering his account, Mr. Niemz engaged in a pattern of play that breached
Clause 13(i). Mr. Niemz does not dispute this fact.

Mr. Niemz’ dispute centres on the argument that, at the relevant time, some additional
terms and conditions that were posted on the Casino’s site regarding signup bonuses (the

“Terms and Conditions - Multiple Bonus Promotion”) did not clearly incorporate the
provisions of the Casino’s T&C.

However, given the fact that Mr. Niemz did accept the T&C and that his pattern of play
subsequently breached Clause 13(i) of the T&C, we cannot conclude that it is reasonable
to direct the Casino to reimburse Mr. Niemz for 100% of the amount of the disputed
amount – 10,000 Euro.

We do accept that the Casino must bear some responsibility for failing to make it clear
that the Terms and Conditions - Multiple Bonus Promotion incorporated the provisions of
the Casino’s T&C.

In view of the foregoing, we hereby direct that:

1. The Casino must, on or before 8:00 p.m ET on February 18, 2010, deposit 50% of
the disputed amount – i.e. 5,000 Euro – into Mr. Neimz account and permit him to
withdraw this amount, and

2. The Casino must immediately amend its Terms and Conditions - Multiple Bonus
Promotion to clearly indicate that they incorporate the provisions of the T&C.

Given that Mr. Niemz previously chose to make his dispute with the Casino a public
matter, we do not consider the terms of this decision to be confidential.

The Commission’s file in this matter is now closed.

KAHNAWAKE GAMING COMMISSION

Per: Micki Oster, Dispute Resolution Officer
 

wishfulsuited

Dormant account
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Location
Basildon
Thanks for everyone's thoughts on this issue, I'm glad I posted here.
The think is, I am sure I read all the General Terms anyway, and I am sure it wasn't there then.
Lucky Nugget haven't replied to me on that issue, so I will wait until their rep replies before I take anything else further..

Was £45 spins on BDB too much for a starting balance of £2000? It seemed to work. Imagine if I had just got one more ruby on my win. I think it would have been over £300,000!! I do seem to have a lot of luck on it, but never on this big a spins.
I have attached 'screenshots' of my wins.
 

Attachments

  • Thunderstruck £7750 5 Poles.jpg
    Thunderstruck £7750 5 Poles.jpg
    124.3 KB · Views: 254
  • Break Da Bank £20k free spins.jpg
    Break Da Bank £20k free spins.jpg
    91.5 KB · Views: 253

Nifty29

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 20, 2001
Location
Turn right, then right. then right again
It might be worth the player complaining to ecogra if everything else has failed and if the terms were hidden and not on the same page as the bonus

Kahnawake ruled about a similar problem and Casino Rewards had to pay 50% of the winnings

xxxhttp://www.gpwa.org/forum/uk-casino-club-casino-rewards-denies-10k-payout-resolved-186950.html

I think that would be a fair resolution here.


Both parties share some responsibility.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
I think that would be a fair resolution here.


Both parties share some responsibility.

Only if this term is applied fairly and to ALL players. If this term IS being applied as it should be, across the board for ALL players, then this group should no longer be accredited. Max cashouts may be acceptable on free chips where the player has not risked their own money, but they cannot be acceptable where players have deposited.

Since it is in the general terms, there must be an intention to some time in the future to change it's scope of application so that it is no longer specifically an SUB term.

There is also no way a player can meet this term because they cannot control what the slots will produce on any spin, and thus cannot choose to win less now, and the rest later when the term no longer applies.


If they don't like £45 per spin, don't offer it - this is easy to achieve via the MGS back end. It is also possible to reduce the max coin value allowed when a bonus is in play, which would be a bonus specific means of preventing the use of the coin that allows £45 spins on these 9 line slots.

Go Wild used this function years ago, and when there was a bonus on the account, the £45 max bet was cut right back to a little over £10

For a £2000 balance, it is not such a big bet, and is a very long way inside their max bet term of 25% of the bonus, which would presumably be a £250 max bet.

This is so out of line compared to the rest of the accredited list that they no longer belong there. It is REALLY out of line to see this at a Microgaming casino. This is only a 100% bonus, not the stupid 1000%+ boni normally associated with this kind of term at Rival casinos in particular, Pamper casino, and some RTG casinos.
 
Top